When will D&C 132 be removed or modified?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Translation is flawed? What? It originally said "6 billion days"? That's quite a stretch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism

The meaning of "day" (yôma)
Much of the debate centres on the interpretation of the word day (yôma in the original Hebrew.) Some common arguments in favour of the identification of this term with a long period of time are listed below. Note that the Day-Age Creationists (DACs) have differences between themselves, and some of these arguments are accepted by only certain camps of DACs.

1) In many Christian interpretations, God is not bound by time (Psalms 90:4 etc.), so the term "day" can vary arbitrarily.

2) The word yôma has multiple meanings in Hebrew. BDB's Hebrew lexicon gives the following definitions:

1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 11
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow
From the above definitions, the highlighted one, (d), is claimed by DACs to be the correct interpretation of the word yôma. Other examples of yôma as a long period include: Genesis 2:4, Genesis 30:14, Joshua 24:7, Proverbs 25:13, Isaiah 4:2, Zechariah 14:8 and references to "the day of the Lord."

3) The term "day" in Genesis is used before the sun and the moon were created or appeared (Gen. 1:5, 14-15.);2 consequently, "day" does not refer to an Earthly day, because such a day does not yet exist.

4) The abstract use of "day" as an indefinite period of time is found in other mythological and religious writings of the Middle East to denote the passage of cosmic benchmarks in addition to referring to earthly time marked by the sun or the moon.

5) Early Hebrew was very scant in words referring to periods of time. There was no word in early Hebrew with the meaning the words "period" and "season." Therefore, if the author meant long creation days, he would have used the word yôm to refer to them. Some Young Earth creationists suggest that there were other words that could have been used for long ages, if that is what the author had intended to communicate. [2] Yôm can indeed mean long age or unspecified time, but it is argued that only in special cases with a preposition is this possible. However, in the specific context of Genesis 1, the days are numbered and have "evening and morning", so they claim that they can mean only 24 hour days. Some DACs respond that there are other passages that use "evening and morning" and yet apply to long periods of time.[1]

6) Genesis 2:4 uses the word "yôm" to refer to the entire creation account, which is obviously not 24 hours long in total. Therefore, the word "yôm" in Genesis 1 could also have a more abstract meaning.

7) The physicist Gerald Schroeder suggests that relativistic time dilation effects make the internal times (in billions of years) of the main phases of creation broadly compatible with the time that an external observer of the universe would see being in days.[2] The detailed calcuations are inevitably speculative in the absence of a sound theory unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. However it is well-established in relativity that the observed time of an action depends greatly on the frame of reference of the observer, and it is pretty clear from the Biblical Creation accounts that the "days" referred to are from God's point of view.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by All-American

What I believe he is saying is that the word translated as "day" can mean an indistinguishable period of time-- era, epoch, et cetera. As in, "The Earth was created in Jeff Lebowski's day."

Come on. You've got to go far beyond a simple difference in time periods to reconcile the account of the creation with literal history. Ditto for the flood. Claiming that these accounts are simply a result of "translation error" is disingenuous.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Once again: I am not necessarily taking him to task for his literal or figurative reading of the scriptures (although I may disagree on that too). I am protesting the idea that God would issue a personal revelation to someone other than a prophet, invalidating a given scripture. So let's not get distracted.

Why is that so outrageous to you? He is not claiming to speak for the church nor is he claiming to supersede the prophet. If personal revelation cannot apply to something so fundamental as interpretation of scripture, then I wonder where it applies? There are certain things you don't take literally in scripture. Are you saying that it would be impossible to get a spiritual confirmation that such events are not in fact to be taken literally?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Why is that so outrageous to you? He is not claiming to speak for the church nor is he claiming to supersede the prophet.

I don't know how the (for example) commandment to kill Isaac can be literal for one person, and figurative for another. Can you explain how those two ideas can co-exist?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

If personal revelation cannot apply to something so fundamental as interpretation of scripture, then I wonder where it applies? There are certain things you don't take literally in scripture. Are you saying that it would be impossible to get a spiritual confirmation that such events are not in fact to be taken literally?

Personal revelation is intended for the application of doctrine, not for its interpretation. As I said before, there is only one man who carries the authority to do so.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Personal revelation is intended for the application of doctrine, not for its interpretation. As I said before, there is only one man who carries the authority to do so.

I'd argue that how we treat each other is all that really matters.

I have no problem with you believing that our God would traumatize a man by telling him to kill his own son, as long as you wouldn't be rude to someone over it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'd argue that how we treat each other is all that really matters.

I have no problem with you believing that our God would traumatize a man by telling him to kill his own son, as long as you wouldn't be rude to someone over it.

Why is it any more unreasonable for a God to ask a man to kill his own son (with the intent of never actually letting him do it) than to ask a group of Saints to cross the plains in a trek that would kill hundreds or even thousands?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Why is it any more unreasonable for a God to ask a man to kill his own son (with the intent to never actually let him do it) than to ask a group of Saints to cross the plains in a trek that would kill hundreds or even thousands?

My ancestors came across in the Martin handcart company. God didn't tell them to attempt to do the impossible by crossing the plains so late in the year. These were naive Brits who had no idea what a real Rocky Mountain winter was like, and they were told by others to leave despite the fact that it was obviously too late in the year.

It was fanaticism--and they were innocent victims of their own fanaticism as well as the fanaticism of others, who should have known better.

Can't you see how Old Testament fanaticism and modern fanaticism are equally harmful and silly?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'd argue that how we treat each other is all that really matters.

I have no problem with you believing that our God would traumatize a man by telling him to kill his own son, as long as you wouldn't be rude to someone over it.

This really piques my curiosity, Sooner. Does God tell you to excise every scripture that associates his commandments with pain?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

My ancestors came across in the Martin handcart company. God didn't tell them to attempt to do the impossible by crossing the plains so late in the year. These were naive Brits who had no idea what a real Rocky Mountain winter was like, and they were told by others to leave despite the fact that it was obviously too late in the year.

It was fanaticism--and they were innocent victims of their own fanaticism as well as the fanaticism of others, who should have known better.

Can't you see how Old Testament fanaticism and modern fanaticism are equally harmful and silly?

So you believe that God didn't really want the British, Scandanavian, etc. saints to come to Utah to help build up Zion?

Yes or no?